Portland 2035 Comprehensive Plan

[babs]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

I was referring specifically to the street fee there. Say what you will about Hales, but he's put himself front and center in the fight for more revenue for PBOT.

His lack of leadership is painful. It's one thing to say that you will fight for more money but the flipflopping and lack of ability to commit to anything is killing him. He's never going to find a plan that everyone will agree on. having said that, he could show some good faith but spending the city's surplus on road fixes. The perception is that the city is wasting our money and showing some good faith by committing any city surpluses to road would get him some political goodwill.

I think Hales is a good guy but has the political skills of a mouse.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by babs

His lack of leadership is painful. It's one thing to say that you will fight for more money but the flipflopping and lack of ability to commit to anything is killing him. He's never going to find a plan that everyone will agree on. having said that, he could show some good faith but spending the city's surplus on road fixes. The perception is that the city is wasting our money and showing some good faith by committing any city surpluses to road would get him some political goodwill.

I think Hales is a good guy but has the political skills of a mouse.

I honestly think he's a trojan horse republican for this very reason-- he's trying to make liberals look bad by acting like he's giving enough effort for good faith, but intentionally waffling to make his cohorts look bad. It's a long con to change the political landscape of Portland more car-centric.

I know. tin foil. But watching this charade has me convinced.

[maccoinnich]

Yeah, that sounds likely.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Yeah, that sounds likely.

And less likely is that he's an honest politician? Meh. I'm cynical.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

I honestly think he's a trojan horse republican for this very reason-- he's trying to make liberals look bad by acting like he's giving enough effort for good faith, but intentionally waffling to make his cohorts look bad. It's a long con to change the political landscape of Portland more car-centric.

I know. tin foil. But watching this charade has me convinced.

I have a feeling much of this current City Council is nothing more than a stop gap between councils. This bunch isn't the group of politicians that will be taking Portland to the next level, it will more than likely be who replaces a number of them. Hopefully Portland can get some people with some real vision for its future running for office to replace many of these dud politicians.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

I have a feeling much of this current City Council is nothing more than a stop gap between councils. This bunch isn't the group of politicians that will be taking Portland to the next level, it will more than likely be who replaces a number of them. Hopefully Portland can get some people with some real vision for its future running for office to replace many of these dud politicians.

Where are the visionaries that I can vote for next round, though? They need to come out of the woodwork and be decidedly more leftist than these goons.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Where are the visionaries that I can vote for next round, though? They need to come out of the woodwork and be decidedly more leftist than these goons.

Can we nominate Maccoinich?

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

I have a feeling much of this current City Council is nothing more than a stop gap between councils. This bunch isn't the group of politicians that will be taking Portland to the next level, it will more than likely be who replaces a number of them. Hopefully Portland can get some people with some real vision for its future running for office to replace many of these dud politicians.

That's how I feel. I don't know why they keep running for reelection. They can't possibly love their job. They are uninspiring, lack vision, and barely get things done. We get some cool development DESPITE them, not because of them.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by Derek

Can we nominate Maccoinich?

Although I do sometimes listen to City Council meetings for fun, being a politician would be my idea of hell. There are a lot of issues where I would have a hard time pretending to be interested.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Although I do sometimes listen to City Council meetings for fun, being a politician would be my idea of hell. There are a lot of issues where I would have a hard time pretending to be interested.

I know what you mean, there was a point in my life where wanting to be involved in politics sounded like a good idea...and then I got older and learned more about politics....I would rather marry a Kardashian than run for any office.

[maccoinnich]

New Scenic Resources Inventory with interactive map. Whole thing is insane. They're identifying views of everything from everywhere. Although they're not yet making recommendations for whether or how these views should be protected, I'm totally baffled as to how some of these views got identified. Somewhat ironically they've mapped the view along SE Madison St to the KOIN Tower; 30 years ago people were complaining about the KOIN Tower blocking the views of Mt Hood.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

New Scenic Resources Inventory with interactive map. Whole thing is insane. They're identifying views of everything from everywhere. Although they're not yet making recommendations for whether or how these views should be protected, I'm totally baffled as to how some of these views got identified. Somewhat ironically they've mapped the view along SE Madison St to the KOIN Tower; 30 years ago people were complaining about the KOIN Tower blocking the views of Mt Hood.

This is the type of 🞵🞵🞵🞵 I knew would be coming given how milquetoast our representatives are. We're going to end up like SF if we keep adding these stupid asinine regulations about views!

[zilfondel]

Thats ridiculous - they already have "protected views" identified from the Tilikum Bridge! Seriously!? Noone has even been on it yet!

Well, I guess you have to create value so that the real estate prices in the central city can be valued even higher, right?

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

Thats ridiculous - they already have "protected views" identified from the Tilikum Bridge! Seriously!? Noone has even been on it yet!

Well, I guess you have to create value so that the real estate prices in the central city can be valued even higher, right?

I'm beginning to feel these planners are jumping the track when it comes to common sense with our growth as a city.

EDIT: MAKE COMMENTS: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/528098

Comments are also accepted by …

Phone: 503-823-7831

Email to: [email protected]

Postal mail to:

Mindy Brooks

City of Portland

Bureau of Planning and Sustainability

1900 SW 4th Ave., Suite 7100

Portland, OR 97201

Comments on the draft CCSRI are due by May 31, 2015.

[RED_PDXer]

I will be commenting. A scenic resource should not a building, because a new building can be just as scenic. All the viewpoints along the river of other river locations make no sense. There are a few scenic spots from public spots on the west hills that should be preserved, such as vista bridge. Otherwise, the rest of this is total BS.

[Encolpius]

So you folks are objecting to the idea of taking an inventory of the scenic resources of a city cradled between two rivers, the West Hills and the foothills of Mt Hood?

Hasn't a battle over access to these resources just been fought in the Pearl, between a developer who wants to appropriate and privatize views of Union Station, the river and Mt Hood and Edge residents who feel they're more entitled to own those views since they got there first? Doesn't it make sense, when other folks are fighting each other over something that actually belongs to you, John Q. Public, to at least bother to find out how much it's worth so you can decide whether you're interested in holding onto it?

And Union Station, Pioneer Courthouse, the various old downtown churches, and other landmarks have been part of Portland's history and identity for generations. None of these are the equivalent of a new building. Don't you think that a city that's luckily preserved architecture from the very earliest periods of its development ought to view that architecture as a unique resource?

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

So you folks are objecting to the idea of taking an inventory of the scenic resources of a city cradled between two rivers, the West Hills and the foothills of Mt Hood?

Hasn't a battle over access to these resources just been fought in the Pearl, between a developer who wants to appropriate and privatize views of Union Station, the river and Mt Hood and Edge residents who feel they're more entitled to own those views since they got there first? Doesn't it make sense, when other folks are fighting each other over something that actually belongs to you, John Q. Public, to at least bother to find out how much it's worth so you can decide whether you're interested in holding onto it?

And Union Station, Pioneer Courthouse, the various old downtown churches, and other landmarks have been part of Portland's history and identity for generations. None of these are the equivalent of a new building. Don't you think that a city that's luckily preserved architecture from the very earliest periods of its development ought to view that architecture as a unique resource?

I find it absurd you are using Preserve the Pearl as your defense of this. This policy will stifle development, and only really benefit those closest to the city center. Meaning, density will be deferred as sprawl. Our community has a right to be against that.

[Nunya]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

So you folks are objecting to the idea of taking an inventory of the scenic resources of a city cradled between two rivers, the West Hills and the foothills of Mt Hood?

Just my opinion, but, yes, I'd object (and I did so in a comment) to even the idea as it creates a sense of entitlement. I think the whole notion of scenic resources of a city is idiotic. I think cities should be dynamic and change over time. I think trying to identify what views are important to everyone now and into the future isn't realistic and just adds more bureaucracy and will benefit the few much more than the public. If they want to identify a few small view corridors (from high use public areas) and protect those areas I'd be grudgingly ok with that but even then I'd be against it personally.

I'd love to see the City put out a 3d output of all the potential view corridors overlaid if/when they do start talking about restrictions. Throw in the building height limits (boo) and sun/shade restrictions (which I'm less against) as well while your at it and let's see what's left to work with.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by Nunya

I think the whole notion of scenic resources of a city is idiotic.

I agree. Every building that rose blocked something else. People tried to stop KOIN Tower from being built because it would block views of Mt. Hood. Now people - possibly some of those very same people, though they're obviously quite a bit older now - would complain about having their view of KOIN Tower blocked. They want to protect their view of something that, if they'd had their way, wouldn't exist.

It's ridiculous.

Need a view of the river? No problem! We've got a world class park that stretches along the river. Need a view of KOIN Tower? Not to worry! We've got another excellent city park diagonally across the street. You'll get a view of KOIN Tower and a waterfall too. Bonus!

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

I agree. Every building that rose blocked something else. People tried to stop KOIN Tower from being built because it would block views of Mt. Hood. Now people - possibly some of those very same people, though they're obviously quite a bit older now - would complain about having their view of KOIN Tower blocked. They want to protect their view of something that, if they'd had their way, wouldn't exist.

It's ridiculous.

Need a view of the river? No problem! We've got a world class park that stretches along the river. Need a view of KOIN Tower? Not to worry! We've got another excellent city park diagonally across the street. You'll get a view of KOIN Tower and a waterfall too. Bonus!

I bet Amanda Fritz probably didn't want the KOIN tower either. She's probably now enthusiastically in support of a view corridor for it.